Claimant v BMW Hams Hall Motoren GMBH
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was treated unfavourably because of his inability to work nights, which arose in consequence of his disability. The respondent could not show the treatment was proportionate in respect of the requirement to work night shifts stated definitively in the 22 August 2024 outcome letter. However, the procedural steps of inviting to and holding the capability meeting were justified as proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims, and other aspects of the meeting content and outcome letter were also justified.
Withdrawn by claimant at preliminary hearing on 22 April 2025. Dismissed on withdrawal by judgment dated 22 April 2025.
Facts
The claimant, a long-serving assembly operative at BMW with back and shoulder disabilities, was unable to work more than 4-hour shifts or night shifts due to his conditions and medication side effects. From January 2024 he worked reduced hours on full pay pending treatment. After attempts to find suitable roles in his department (Band L) failed, the respondent invoked a capability process in May 2024. A second capability meeting was held on 8 July 2024, which ended prematurely. An outcome letter dated 22 August 2024 stated that the claimant could not avoid night shifts in a potential alternative rig and de-rig role, though this had not been properly investigated.
Decision
The tribunal found that the procedural steps of holding the capability meeting and most of its content were justified as proportionate means of achieving legitimate business aims. However, the respondent failed to justify the definitive statement in the 22 August 2024 letter that the claimant could not avoid night shifts in the rig and de-rig role, as this had not been properly assessed. The claim of discrimination arising from disability succeeded on this specific point only.
Practical note
Employers must ensure factual accuracy when communicating adjustments decisions during capability processes, particularly when stating definitively that accommodations cannot be made without proper investigation and consultation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6016994/2024
- Decision date
- 7 January 2026
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Assembly Operative
- Service
- 16 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister